Blog

Mar 24, 2012

CERN Cannot Continue the LHC Experiment

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]

My danger-proving results concerning the safety of the LHC experiment were presented to CERN 4 years ago in the standard scientific format: First as preprints, then a few months later in July of 2008 as reprints of conference proceedings – the fastest possible method of scientific communication.

Today almost 4 years later, following publication in refereed journals, too, CERN continues to openly ignore the presented proof of danger. Witness the official countdown having reached 12 days until CERN’s upgraded LHC experiment officially continues its attempt to produce black holes.

In doing so, CERN officially ignores three scientific proofs regarding the hoped-for black holes:
(1) Black holes arise much more readily than expected, do not evaporate and are invisible to CERN’s detectors for their being uncharged.
(2) As soon as a sufficiently slow specimen is generated, it grows exponentially inside earth so as to shrink the planet to 2 cm after a few years’ time delay.
(3) The hoped-for black holes are not (as CERN claims against better knowledge) “proven innocuous” by the fact that nature’s own fast analogs must get stuck inside neutron stars in much the same way as an artificial one will get stuck inside earth. The reason the neutron stars are protected is solely the superfluidity of their cores.

The three results do stem from a different discipline each: the first from the equivalence principle of special relativity, the second from chaos theory (Kleiner attractor), the third from quantum mechanics. Although dismantling one out of the three suffices to dispel the LHC danger, no scientist ever succeeded in falsifying one of them.

CERN’s “safety report” of 2008 deliberately ignored all three results. Worse, this “safety report” was refused to update ever since. This deliberate neglect represents – given the severity of the consequences – a case of open scientific fraud.

The only excuse CERN can proffer against the reproach of deliberate neglect of scientific evidence is to say that my two danger-proving papers, published this year in peer-reviewed journals, have “only” been published in Africa and China, respectively. If CERN does not immediately stop the running countdown, it must therefore publicly explain why it officially considers scientific results published in African and Chinese learned journals as “safe to ignore” regardless of whether or not the survival of the planet is at stake if they are scholarly.

The planet witnessed suicidal racism two days ago in France. President Sarkozy is kindly asked to respond to the assault on France by CERN empowered by French electricity.

33

Comments — comments are now closed.

  • Stephanie Cacioppo on March 24, 2012 6:44 am

    This is most ridiculous statement ever that I have heard. In neuroscience, there is a name for you to be called and it is “crackpot”

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 24, 2012 8:51 am

    The only weapon left to CERN appears to be to claim the role of the world’s psychiatrist. Forgive me, Mr. Cacioppo, if I did not understand the hopefully real roots of your expressed conviction which, I agree, is up-lifting in a time of crisis. Are you sure you are not putting your head in the sand? Please, elaborate.

  • Warren Sampson on March 24, 2012 11:31 am

    Also in psychology the term megalomaniac applies. A megalomaniac suffers delusions of power or relevance.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 24, 2012 12:27 pm

    Especially if all he clamors for is to be given the benefit of falsification.

    Is there no physicist around to help CERN find the error in their panic since the fear of losing money prevents them from stopping in time.

  • William Kilgore on March 24, 2012 12:27 pm

    “The only weapon left to CERN …”

    Otto, that’s real escapism. On your side. Doesn’t matter. The daily Otto is just amusing.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 24, 2012 12:39 pm

    If I remember correctly, you are a colleague working in a sister institution to CERN. Do you have an advice to give when the world desperately needs a scientist who can explode one of the three not very difficult results presented as the only basis of danger?

    Then the “theater” I am making would stop for good — and with deep heartfelt apologies. Thank you for replying.

  • Serge Debussier on March 24, 2012 1:03 pm

    Dear Otto,
    What do you think about the claim that CERN was in reality founded with the purpose of developing lethal weapons to protect us against Nazis hiding on the dark side of the moon?

  • William Kilgore on March 24, 2012 1:13 pm

    Serge, Otto had the idea torebuild the LHC on the moon. That was in the year 2008. I guess he had the rotten mission on his mind to destroy this nazi outpost by throwing mini black holes on them ;-)

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 24, 2012 1:34 pm

    William Kilgore copped out.
    No scientist wide and far between?
    No defender of CERN on the planet again?

  • William Kilgore on March 24, 2012 1:43 pm

    Otto, CERN needs no defenders against …

    old stupid crackpots.

  • Tom Kerwick on March 24, 2012 3:55 pm

    I would like to note that all comments thusfar on this post against Prof Rossler have been unscientific attempts at character assassination. To suggest that HR theory may be incorrect or to question the rather counter-intuitive MBH accretion rates suggested by G&M as flawed is hardly in the realm of ‘crackpot’. The supposedly peer reviewed papers should be refuted scientifically, not defamed. Where is the common decency here.

  • TRMG on March 25, 2012 2:02 am

    “I would like to note that all comments thusfar on this post against Prof Rossler have been unscientific attempts at character assassination. ”

    I would like to note that this is at least equally true of any of Rössler’s blog posts, in which he compares publicly known scientists to Nazis, accuses them of lying about the validity of their own arguments, or claims that CERN scientists conspire to suppress the truth and attempt murder.

    “To suggest that HR theory may be incorrect or to question the rather counter-intuitive MBH accretion rates suggested by G&M as flawed is hardly in the realm of ‘crackpot’.”

    This entirely depends on the arguments on which these claims are based.

    Rössler states that Eq. (1) of Telemach is a correct description of gravitational time dilation. Getting a basic equations totally wrong, and, instead of correcting it, trying to defend it with increasingly nonsensical interpretations of standard theory even though he could easily have learned about his error by looking at a random textbook is classic crackpot behavior.

    Rössler states that Eq. (2) of Telemach is equivalent to his own gothic-R distance. So he maintains that two completely different equations (proper distance and a fictitious R-distance) must mean the same thing, while simultaneously claiming that the R-distance must replace proper distance as physical observable. Failing to provide your assertions with a minimum of logical consistency, and refusing to even address any contradictions despite having been made aware of them repeatedly is classic crackpot behavior.

    Rössler claims that charge must vary in accordance with mass, because, in his view, both are proportional. In other words, he takes for granted the truth of a proposition for which an abundance of trivial counter examples exist in reality. Divorcing your considerations from the real world entirely is classic crackpot behavior.

    Claiming that your reflections about the equivalence principle and special relativity invalidate mathematical theorems (Stokes theorem) that are proven in a much more general context is classic crackpot behavior.

    The above list is by far incomplete.

    Finally, as far as I can tell, Rössler bases his criticism of the accretion rates calculated by G&M on his allegation that they assume a linear growth law, which they don’t, and counters it with a completely fabricated number (“probably 5 years’ time”) supported by nothing but proud ignorance, which hardly counts as a scientific argument.

  • Rob Doerr on March 25, 2012 4:11 am

    First allow me to state that I am on neither side of this, arguement.
    However, in dealing with the unknown, no one knows! I would hazard to say that if there was, and there is, a possibilty of a disaster outcome it should be studied further. In just the last 2 years there has been utterly astonishing discoveries of distantly similar anomolies in the outer reaches of space. And the scientists have no idea what, how or in reality when they occured. And trying to provoke these outcomes here on this planet is very dangerous. “If they have not been able to replicate this and successfully I might add, they, all of them, do not know what the outcome will be” RD

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 4:14 am

    Anonymous ad hominem slanders are not a substitute for a scientific counter-proof which ought to be easy against maximally simple scientific results belonging to the realm of special relativity, chaos theory and pioneer quantum mechanics.

    Is it so preposterous to clamor for the benefit of the doubt?

    CERN is afraid of even naming a scientist who might be able to find a counterargument. For even to start defending themselves would show they cannot ignite their machine in 11 days’ time.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 4:17 am

    Thank you, Mr. Doerr (I had not seen your contribution yet).

  • Tom Kerwick on March 25, 2012 5:01 am

    Thank you TRMG, for offering the most appropriate response to Prof Rosslers posts here on lifeboat to date that I have seen. At a risk of irritating certain critics I would like to see Otto respond to you in kind with a similarly articulate respond.

  • Peter Howell on March 25, 2012 6:32 am

    Otto, what happened to my post? Don’t like being confronted with facts? Ruling with iron fist in your little dictatorship.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 7:01 am

    Dear Peter Howell: I cannot maie any changes even to my onw postigs on this blog here.

    Dear Tom: Unfortunatel0y, the anonymous TRMG has proven before that he does not understand Telemach. His claims are absolutely empty and have been refuted a hundreds times on previous blogs on Lifeboat. But I agree with you that he is the only physicist on the planet who tries his best. Unfortunately so without being able to come up with a counter-theorem.

    Maybe someone can assist him?

  • Tom Kerwick on March 25, 2012 7:13 am

    Thanks Otto. Peter — that was me, not Otto. I don’t tolerate personal attacks, and before you suggest bias, note I removed a post of Otto’s last week also which related to harm of children. Incidentally, my qualifications of various merit are all in engineering, not physics — and I have certainly never claimed to be an authority on general relativity, hence my deferrence to TRMG’s comments on Otto’s work. Please stay on topic… Tom (Webmaster).

  • TRMG on March 25, 2012 8:04 am

    Tom Kerwick: I was only summarizing what has been said many times before. It never provoked any substantial response from Rössler. But I think it is easy enough to verify his incompetence in the field of relativity: try to find any account of general relativity, other than Rössler’s, which corroborates his version of gravitational time dilation as expressed in Eq. (1) of Telemach. You won’t find any. Rössler’s explanation so far has been, that he, a medical doctor with no training in physics, is the only one who really understands Einstein’s theory while anyone who contradicts him is just an apologist for obsolete dogma. You have to decide for yourself if you find that convincing.

    Also it should not be too difficult to check his claim that Eq. (2) of Telemach and “gothic-R” define the same distance measure.

    So far no one here who opined that Rössler may have a valid point regarding LHC safety has also been willing to invest this minimum effort to find out whether any of his claims are actually true or make any sense. Maybe you are.

  • Al Neese on March 25, 2012 8:32 am

    CERN has continually stated that the creation of micro black holes on Earth would be perfectly safe as the micro black holes are so tiny that they will evaporate – but is this definitely the case? Why doesn’t anyone reply to Dr. Rossler with fact not attacks? Didn’t CERN loose account of one or more of these micro black holes?

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 8:44 am

    Dear Mr. TRMG:
    Clamoring not to have understood a theorem and trying to look at the background of a scientist instead, is only probabilistic evidence which has no place when a hard theorem on whose validity the safety of the planet depends is at stake.
    If you are unable to find the “bite” to dismantle a theorem rather than attack the discoverer, please, use your allegedly ample connections to find someone else who can bring your own honorable dream to fruition.
    You know that I believe you to be a co-worker of Professor Hermann Nicolai’s; you never contradicted me in this respect. May I officially ask you to conveymy respectful regards to him and ask him in my name whether he might not tell the world — here or at an even more visible place — which element of my special-relativistic (accelaration-including) theorem he cannot accept, and why.
    Thank you.

  • TRMG on March 25, 2012 9:25 am

    It was not so much my intention to attack you than to encourage Tom to check some specific, easy to falsify claims of yours. I think you cannot really object to that.

    “May I officially ask you to conveymy respectful regards to him and ask him in my name whether he might not tell the world — here or at an even more visible place — which element of my special-relativistic (accelaration-including) theorem he cannot accept, and why. ”

    All I can do is tell you that I would be very surprised to learn that any physicist could accept any of the points I mentioned above, among which are

    your version of time dilation,
    your claim of mass and charge proportionality,
    your claim to have invalidated the Stokes theorem in the context of general relativity.

    Also the odd claim of having refuted the Reissner-Nordström metric by means of the Schwarzschild metric, which are two completely independent solutions, I figure, will be very hard to accept by any physicist.

    As to why these claims are unacceptable, I think the reasons are fairly obvious, but I doubt that discussing them with you again would be more rewarding than it was in the past. So I’ll refrain from doing so.

  • Tom Kerwick on March 25, 2012 10:27 am

    TRMG — I’ve looked at it before, and as an outsider to general relativity but familar with the concepts, came to the conclusion that either Otto is thinking outside the box and I don’t get it, or he is thinking outside of the box because he doesn’t get it. Draw your own conclusions…

  • William Kilgore on March 25, 2012 2:05 pm

    “The supposedly peer reviewed papers should be refuted scientifically, not defamed. Where is the common decency here.”

    Tom, its amazing. You claim for scientific standards? ROFL
    But, as you declared yourself as a webmaster of lifeboat.com puts light on the scene. Now we know, liefeboat.com is not even a trojan horse to science, but a melting pot of pseudoscientists and academic impostors.

    Thx for clarifying your position.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 3:17 pm

    Very interesting comments from both physicists, anonymous TRMG and William Kilgore (International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, ICTS).

    Both have no other argument than to see that the results on which the survival of the planet hinges if tru,e are new. Novelty is then equated with falsity.

    This is a non-surprising illustration of the dogmatic side which science always had to it.

    TRGM simultaneously does not dispute that he is the mouthpiece of Professor Hermann Nicolai, leading physicist at the Albert-Einstein Institute at Golm in Germany. Why is Professor Nicolai refraining from giving his criticism himself — if he has any?

    The whole world is waiting for him to open his mouth. He was the only scientific defender of CERN’s before Telemach — which owes its existence in part to a scientific discussion with him. No one would be better qualified to counter Telemach if possible. It would be both illuminating and fair if he stated his position after Telemach.

  • William Kilgore on March 25, 2012 3:30 pm

    Otto, again

    CERN is in a comfortable position not to answer to an old stupid crackpot. Neither it will be responsive to impostors like Tom.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 25, 2012 3:45 pm

    Dear Colleague: Is this the new way to deal with colleagues at the two scientific institutions that you are defending here: your own and CERN?

    Are you really adamant that an “old stupid crackpot,” as you call me under your own name in public, is ALWAYS wrong? Especially if he obviously means maximally well?

  • William Kilgore on March 25, 2012 4:50 pm

    Otto, you are not only an old stupid crackpot. It’s amusing how your network deals with agonizing rubbish, as well with serious frauds. You, Tom, … a long list.

  • Otto E. Rossler on March 26, 2012 12:44 am

    Strange utterance by a government scientist.

  • Tom Kerwick on March 26, 2012 3:23 am

    Mr Kilgore — I take you to account on two comments — ‘Neither it will be responsive to impostors like Tom’. Actually the LSAG have been quite responsive to me for a number of years so I’d advise you just represent your own petulent self and not others — if you are who you claim to be. ‘Tom, … a long list.’ I don’t know what you refer to as ‘a long list’ nor an ‘imposter’ as I never claim to anything more than I have in my arsenal.

    A Master’s of Engineering qualification of highest rating from the University of Limerick for example should be sufficient credential for one to be treated with a bit more respect than you offer — or my work in microwave radio — though I guess as a scientist you have issue with more practical minded engineering peers, which I would consider quite unprofessional of you.

    Actually, I am not even sure why you have a problem with the opinion I offered re decency.

    You seem quite an agitated individual — and in as so far as the recent dissertation closer to the subject area, I do not hide anything in this regard — and allowed it to be shared in the public domain. Try discussing the science instead, or vent your sleuth arrogance elsewhere.

  • Tom Kerwick on March 26, 2012 6:38 am

    Mr Kilgore– if I may further highlight the stupidity of some of your remarks here — ‘Tom, its amazing. You claim for scientific standards? ROFL’ in what context do you think it is amazing that I endorse peer review? If this relates to my dissertation of the subject matter of LHC safety, I would like to clarify to you that I was quite humbled that the LSAG took the time to review this, for example, whom were as kind as to correct me on a few mistakes I made therein and to quote verbatim ‘we certainly endorse the first two paragraphs of page 73. We also share the sentiment that it is the scientists’ responsibility to debate and keep open the scrutiny of whatever possible implication of their research’. Is that peer enough for you?

    I also have strove to get my recent short paper on hypothetical MBH flux reviewed on arXiv, so again why are you amazed? If you are indeed Mr Kilgore (I doubt), I advise you smarten up.

  • Jason on March 26, 2012 9:58 am

    Following Tom Kerwick’s suggestion, this is a test to see if I am still unable to post.